<p>Either way, whether or not the statistics are right doesnt even matter when it comes to whether or not transfer students should or should not be held up to the same standard by means of some kind of additional final exam. They could do just as well in the last 2 years all the same. But they very well may not have been through the same academic gauntlet as the rest of their new classmates. However they do for the next two years doesnt matter. Anyone in those upper division classes has earned the right to attend by working their tails off. No one should be exempt.</p>
<p>Dstark, so if you don’t care, then why did you object to the idea when I first proposed it? </p>
<p>You have to admit, you don’t know the facts either. The point is, nobody knows, which is why we ought to find out. I don’t understand why people, who have to admit they don’t know, would seriously object to finding out.</p>
<p>quote: “you can’t handle the truth”</p>
<p>not you exactly.</p>
<p>Sakky, maybe you’d do fine, but I’m not ashamed to admit that I would have a hard time going back and passing classes that I took as a fresh. or soph. I just don’t buy the whole thing. Why? Whats the purpose of this? Like it or not, the reason there are weeder classes is to make sure that the right people make it to their junior year, meaning people that will succede in upper division classes. So if tranfers are doing just as good as non-tranfers in those upper division classes then whats the big deal? Like the Beatles said, “let it be.”</p>
<p>I never objected to publishing the data. I object to complaining about something without knowing the facts.</p>
<p>Since you are the one complaining, the onus is one you to come up with the proof.</p>
<p>Berkeley says there is no difference between the performance of freshman admitees and transfer admittees. I accept what they say.</p>
<p>You don’t. Fine. Show me some proof.</p>
<p>So object to someone complaining that they dont know? Man theyve been doing that for ever… Read T&D of Socrates lately?? We should never complain that we dont know something and attempt to find the answer.</p>
<p>Yet,conor, that’s exactly the assumption that we cannot make. We cannot assume that they really are doing just as well in those upper-division courses. We don’t know, the study hasn’t been published, and I suspect that that was done deliberately. That is why my first step is to publish the study where we can really see what kinds of grades the transfer students are getting, compared to the grades of freshman-admits ONLY IN THOSE UPPER DIVISION COURSES, not overall. That’s the fair comparison to make. But apparently a lot of people don’t even want to publish the study, and I have to ask, why not? </p>
<p>If it turns out that the study shows that those transfer students really are getting the same grades are freshman-admits in those upper-division courses, then I would agree that that bolsters your argument that everything is OK. But if not (hence, if transfers tend to consistently get lower grades in upper-division courses relative to freshman-admits), then you have to agree that something is amiss.</p>
<p>And again, I would emphasize, these weeders are supposed to be building blocks. You are supposed to be good at your building blocks. If you truly are a strong mechanical engineering student, then having to take the final exam in Physics 7A should not fill you with fear. If you truly are a strong EE student, then taking the final exam in EE40 should not fill you with fear. If you truly are a strong ChemE student, then having to take the Chem1A final exam should not fill you with fear. Those exams test you on basic information that you should be able to recall fairly easily anyway. Just a few days of brushup, and you should be good to go.</p>
<p>That’s cute, dstark. You know that I can’t come up with the facts - because the facts are locked up inside Berkeley’s database, which you know I can’t get to. </p>
<p>The only facts that are publicly available are what Berkeley publishes. Berkeley has said that the performance of the 2 groups of students is the same. I have looked at their evidence and I find it unconvincing, for the reasons that I have described ad nauseum. And I am not shy to say that I find the evidence to be unconvincing. Basically, the evidence that Berkeley has published has several serious flaws, which I have described previously. So Berkeley should publish an unflawed study.</p>
<p>I agree that there should be a study on this subject, but until then we have to take the word of Cal and believe that tranfers do just as well. If not, then yes, something should be done, but not what you’re talking about. If anything, just make sure the ccc classes are closer to their Cal counterparts.</p>
<p>Conor and Dstark i guess youre both on the same boat. Wait for someone else to tell you that you think something is not what it seems. Unwaveringly believe whatever they say, without them clarifying their statistics, or at least showing you the data and letting you run the t-test. I cant stand ambiguous statements, especially when you can see where they got it from. Now you may be content to swallow whatever they hand you, but sometimes its nice to have a little clarification.</p>
<p>Actually, conor, I don’t think I am obligated to take the word of Cal at all. Why? Because it is Cal itself who decides whether to publish the study or not. Hence, if there really is something to hide, then we both know that Cal has a vested interest in not publishing the study. It’s the fox guarding the henhouse. Hence, like it or not, Cal has no credibility on this issue - we simply cannot take Cal’s word for it, because Cal is not a neutral party in this matter.</p>
<p>Why should I believe people that are skeptical but have ZERO facts?
Show me facts.</p>
<p>Again, dstark, cute, very cute. You and I both know that the facts are locked up tight in the registrar’s office. How exactly am I supposed to get to them? So far, Berkeley has only shown you what it wants to show you, and yet you are apparently willing to accept it unquestioningly.</p>
<p>No. I accept them until PROVEN otherwise. Show me any fact anywhere that supports your position. Anywhere.</p>
<p>Yllwjep and sakky, what are your stats to say anything other than what we are being told? How do you know that Cal hasn’t fudged the numbers on incoming SATs or graduate rates of minorites or average amount of rainfall or number of left-handed students? Please, enough with the conspiracy theories.</p>
<p>The FACT is, the statement made by Cal is ambiguous. While it does not rule out a like-comparison, it does not necessarily create one. Clarification is necessary to make a claim like that, especially since its such a loaded statistic, which may hold the fate of the transfer program. And im not asking you to believe that they are lying, i dont necessarily think they are. I simply dont like having companies or organizations posting misleading statements, a institution like Cal should be held to an even higher standard.</p>
<p>Dstark, conor, here’s one way for you to see it. You guys are saying that everything is OK, based on the study that Berkeley has published. I have pointed out that the study is flawed. I don’t know where that study is right now (but since you guys have apparently read it, you should be able to find it). Ask yourself, why would Berkeley publish such a flawed study, especially when the flaws are very easily fixed? Tell me that doesn’t make you even the least bit suspicious.</p>
<p>What study? If there is one I haven’t read it. You say you’ve read it, so tell me why its flawed? Like I said before, if there’s a study I’d like to see it, but until then I’m going to believe that tranfers do just as well freshman admits. Maybe you have some bad experience with transfers that I haven’t, but I don’t see what the problem is.</p>
<p>Honestly, this is asinine. The possibility that something is wrong doesnt necessarily mean that it is. Youre right, i have absolutely no proof. Ill never see it unless Cal wants everyone to. The point is moot. Basing a claim of a programs great success on ambiguous statisitics is misleading. Seeing the ambiguous nature of the claim is my position.</p>
<p>I don’t like organizations or companies lying or putting out misleading statements.
In this case, I haven’t read any such statements.</p>